Ecological Indicators 32 (2013) 232–238 Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect Ecological Indicators jo ur nal ho me page: www.elsevier.com/locate/ ecolind Can indicator species predict restoration outcomes early in the monitoring process? a case study with peatlands E. González ∗ , L. Rochefort, S. Boudreau, S. Hugron, M. Poulin Peatland Ecology Research Group and Centre d’Études Nordiques, 2425, rue de l’Agriculture, Université Laval, Québec, Québec, G1V 0A6, Canada a r t i c l e i n f o Article history: Received 6 November 2012 Received in revised form 31 January 2013 Accepted 11 March 2013 Keywords: Adaptive management Indicator Value Index (IndVal) Ombrotrophic peatlands Partial tb-PCA Raised bogs Vacuum extraction a b s t r a c t Success in ecological restoration is rarely assessed rigorously due to insufficient planning for post- restoration monitoring programs, limited funding and, especially, lack of scientifically validated evaluation criteria and protocols. In this article, we propose the use of the Indicator Value Index tech- nique (IndVal), which statistically determines the association of species to one or several particular site types, to obtain indicators of success at the early stages of the recovery process in restoration projects. Peat bogs extracted by the vacuum method, subsequently restored by a moss-transfer technique and regularly monitored for ∼10 years were used as a model system to test this approach. We first identified 34 restored sectors of ∼10 ha from 4 to 11 years old in twelve eastern-Canadian bogs. These sectors were then classified according to their degree of success in recovering a typical sphagnum moss carpet (restora- tion goal). Then, we retrospectively reviewed vegetation communities recorded at the third year after restoration to identify indicator species of different categories of restoration success, using the IndVal methodology. By identifying early indicator species, our method provides a tool that guides intervention soon after restoration if a site is not on a desired successional trajectory. Typical bog species, namely the bryophytes S. rubellum and Mylia anomala and the tree Picea mariana, were indicative of successful restoration; while bare peat, lichens and one species of ericaceous shrubs (Empetrum nigrum), which cope better under drier conditions, indicated sites where restoration failed. A surprising finding was that the moss Polytrichum strictum, which is known to facilitate the colonization of sphagnum in disturbed peatlands, is an early indicator of unsuccessful restoration. This finding made us question the nursing role of P. strictum at a cover threshold above ca. 30%, when P. strictum could be outcompeting sphagnum and become dominant. We conclude that the IndVal method is an effective tool to identify early indicators of restoration success when combined with a thoughtful examination of species frequency and cover within each site type. © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction Restoration ecology is a young but growing discipline dating to the 1980s (Walker et al., 2007). Despite the increasing num- ber of restoration projects conducted over the last few decades, their success or failure has rarely been evaluated systematically (Bernhardt et al., 2007), due to two main factors. First, recovery of restored ecosystems takes time, and a comprehensive evaluation is not always possible within the project time frame and budget. In fact, most projects are never monitored post-restoration, particu- larly on a mid- and long-term scale (Palmer et al., 2005; Bernhardt et al., 2005; 2007). Second, restoration goals are usually not clearly Abbreviation: IndVal, Indicator Value Index. ∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 418 656 2131x2583; fax: +1 418 656 7856. E-mail addresses: eduardo.gonzalez-sargas.1@ulaval.ca, edusargas@hotmail.com (E. González), line.rochefort@fsaa.ulaval.ca (L. Rochefort). defined (Kondolf et al., 2007; Bernhardt et al., 2007). As a result, criteria for judging ecological success are difficult to determine, which jeopardizes the key task of evaluation (Hobbs and Norton, 1996; Hobbs and Harris, 2001) and discourages practitioners from assessing restoration outcomes (Palmer et al., 2005). Once general agreement on success criteria is reached, indi- cators to evaluate ecologically successful restoration must be identified (Palmer et al., 2005). Good ecological indicators need to capture the complexities of the ecosystem while remaining simple enough to be easily and routinely monitored (Dale and Beyeler, 2001). Defining these indicators is not an easy task, and some project managers have called for more interaction between practitioners and the scientific community to develop standard monitoring protocols that include efficient indicators of restora- tion success (Gillilan et al., 2005; Kondolf et al., 2007; Bernhardt et al., 2007). In particular, identifying indicators that could assess the future success or failure of restoration projects at early stages of the recovery process would be extraordinarily useful. Monitoring 1470-160X/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.03.019